tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee 9716 SFGTV September 10, 2016 6:30pm-7:01pm PDT
>> good morning everyone welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, september 7, 2016. my name is mark farrell chairman of this committee joined by supervisor katie tang and supervisor norman yee. i want to thank sfgov tv for covering this meeting as well as the clerk of our committee. mdm. clerk any announcements ? >> please sounds cell phones.
sector. >> thank you. mdm. clerk please call item number one. >> item number one, except and expend a grant for state vocational rehabilitation services. >> thank you very much. do we have dph person to speak on this item? please, come on up. >> good morning supervisors. my name is jenny wong in him
the occasional program manager for behavioral health services within the department of public health. there two actions included in this proposed legislation with the state department of rehab. also known as the award. the first action is to provide dioguardi with the board of supervisors approval to enter into eight three-year agreement with you are by the county provides por with matching funds. which you are uses to draw down federal funds to support vocational services in san francisco. the board of supervisors has approved this agreement since 1992. the second action is to expend dear warren and funds over that three-year agreement to support a civil service position in fiscal year 12-13. the state added this component to its agreement with the city to which the amendment was approved by the san francisco board of supervisors. to provide the city with funds to provide and support a position to act as a program coordinator
for the vendor. this position will fit in planning organizing coordinating developing and evaluating the work of the vendors in this agreement. the department of public health has at the same relationship with the oh are the past way for years. you are as this relationship in 21 counties in california. in this relationship the department of public health is entered into an agreement with gor to provide matching funds for the purpose of supporting the expansion of vocational services using state funding and state contracts. the large contracts directly with community organizations for the delivery of vocational services. the amount of the awards program funding is dependent on how much matching funding is provided by counties. dioguardi is able to county funds by a ratio 4-1. which amounts to a
county match up 21.3% in the department of public health supports this agreement because it allows the expansion of vocational services in san francisco with only a 21.3 county investment in the state needs a county match in order to draw down and match from the federal government. dph supports doi's infrastructure as if significant supports the san francisco residence and behavioral health services clients. providing services that dph would not otherwise be able to afford. in short, the department pays only 21% of the budgeted however, 100% of the clients are benefiting from it. the state contactor contacts with the vendors. the current vendors are rich and multi-services, ucsf citywide, occupational therapy training program and to works. the vendors provide a specialized locational and limited support services to the clients of dhs. all experiences with mental severe mental illness. the services include rents of
assessment services, vocational planning, career exploration, job placement and retention support and vocational training across several workforce sectors. overall, this program has proven to be very successful. over the past several years, is been a consistent improvement of productivity year after year. this success has resulted in a significant increase of behavioral health clients securing and retaining employment within the comparative workforce. thank you very much for your time. lisa may know if i can insert questions. the checks thank you. any questions or comments you will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item 1? please step on up. everyone will have 2 min. to speak. >> i just want to share that i approve of this program and have personally been affected
by it and i'm thrilled the city is supporting it. thank you get >> thank you very much. it appeals wish to speak on public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] rejects mr. rose can we do your report for item 1? >> no apologies mr. chairman whatsoever. on page three of our report mr. chairman and members of the committee, we report the total state locational rehabilitation services program for the city is 11,000,000.5 33.452 and that includes two factors. one is the $11,262,000 in direct state funding to the five contractors and then the subject to 71 point 22 grant funds to dph was the subject of this resolution. as shown in table 1 on page 3 of our report, the proposed grant requires $2 million in
matching funds from dph to leverage the state vocational legal patient services program funding of $11 million. so that is the 21 3% the department we recommend you approve this resolution >> thank you. colleagues, any questions the one comments? any motion? >> avec a motion to move forward i don't want with positive recommendation to the full board >> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item 2-15. >> item number two, multifamily housing revenue note a multifamily rental housing project at located at 938 ellsworth st. item number three, 2451 sacramento st. item number four spiel >>[reading
ordinance] >>thank you very much. we have the mayor's office of housing to speak on these items? rejects good morning. i'm lydia ely senior project manager with the mayor's office of housing and community development. i'm very pleased to be here today to present these 14 resolutions to you all. these represent the culmination of about three years of work on behalf of the mayor's office of housing and san francisco housing authority. to convert 3500 units from public housing to
privately owned and managed refurbished units that are sponsored by most of our community-based nonprofit affordable housing developers. the work that is being done on these properties today, the issuance of resolutions that you are reviewing in total over $700 million in construction resources for these projects will focus on really restoring these units to habitability. as you all know the housing authority has suffered under funding for many many years and as a result these units have phone into disrepair. they are going to receive about $500 million in rehab among the 35-among the 2000 units that we are addressing today. the work that will take place addresses five deficiencies in the building. like safety deficiencies. in other words, fire safety and sprinklers. the
work will also address building envelope deficiencies. that means roofs, windows, etc. and of course of the units will receive upgrades to provide updated amenities for the residents benefit. this work has really been a collaborative effort with about 10 different city departments. led by our our office but mostly involving the planning department the building department, department of environment, dpw, working with us, puc, human services agency, this is really an all hands on deck effort. i think the city should be very proud of it. of course, the center that is a partnership with the housing authority which currently owns and manages the properties. on the financial side, the city is putting in about $100 million into these projects across both phases. again this is 3500 units. it may sound like a lot but in phase 2 alone were leveraging
$330 million in private debt and $814 million in private equity. so, we are leveraging about 10-21 the city's investment in these properties. these properties are located across the subject of their 9/11 of our supervisorial district of this is unusual to have a presence and have such great activity and improvement of our housing across the whole city. today, we have representatives of a number of the developing teams. seven developer teams doing these 14 projects. a number of them are here if there are questions from you all about individual projects. otherwise i'll be happy to provide more detail and projects themselves or the financing if you wish? >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions?
>> just a quick question. in terms of your assessment and the amount needed to refurbish or rear renovate or fix, was it done on a sort of individual one-on-one or is this a 10 units that's probably on average cost about that much? >> well the property as you would imagine some were built in the 40s commit some of them were built in the 90s. across projects it was really a variation on what is needed. there's some very large ticket items that increase the cost per unit and for example seismic work that has to be undertaken for the whole building at a lot of cost per unit. but to answer question, it really does very a lot good i will say, in this phase 2, we are doing about $240,000 in rehab per unit on average. >> again that will vary depending on the property. some of them are in better shape because of the way they were constructed. some are in better shape because they are younger.
but, yes, in phase 1 we had 14 projects also in our average was $150,000. so the units that were doing now are much greater need of repair. >> do you happen to have a breakdown of the units in regards to number of bedrooms? like, how many of these units are two bedrooms, how many are one and so forth? >> i don't have that on the bit i can tell you that the 14 projects, three of them are family project at 11 are was called senior disabled project. those of zero bedrooms studio bedrooms studio units and one bedroom. so, on the other hand, the family projects tend to have more units. we one project with 234 projects in time the town. we one of a similar size in the bayview. so, i can say
generally we have more smaller units than family units, but i can get to that breakdown >> i really would appreciate that. i have a focus on family units and how we develop and support it so that information would be useful. >> the three family projects are à la many which are 150 units and that's in district 9. then [inaudible] north. 200 units in chinatown and that we have westbrook in the bayview-hunters point and that is 223 i believe. >> thank you >> colleagues, any further questions? will move on to public comment. anybody was to comment on items 2-15? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] rejects any last comments or questions? can have a motion? >> i like to make a motion to move items 2-15
>> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> please call item number 16 mdm. clerk >> items 16, >>[reading ordinance] >> thanks. mayor's office of housing is here again to speak >> i'm here to present the issuance resolution to fund rehabilitation work at st. francis of sissy senior community. the transaction does not change. so that presented the resolution for the project to the committee back in november of last year. in addition to still conduit financing with no records of the city's general fund. the all 110 units of the project will continue to serve seniors
earning a more than 50% of area median income and this girl of the replication still include significant repairs and upgrades which are outlined in the project review in that report talk it into what change, they secured allocation from the california allocation committee. the developer in the city attend by the financing fee including construction permanent mortgage lenders tax credit investors on counsel and other attorneys in the city's municipal advisor. the financing team is that several times and developed substantially bundled on documents that appear in the issuance back before you. as for timeline we anticipate upon closing to occur by the end of this month. with construction beginning shortly there after a construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. on behalf of the developer for the project mercy housing california mayors office of housing and community velma would like to thank you for reconsideration you today with afford to your continued support and without i like to conclude the staff report and answer any questions.
>> thank you. any questions on items 16? seeing none, beaumont to public comment. anybody was to comment on items 16 z1 seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> i moved to the full board for positive recommendation >> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item 17 and 18 together, please >> item 17, >>[reading ordinance]. item 18, >>[reading ordinance] >> item number 19, >>[reading ordinance] >> thank you very much. we have tida her to speak.
>> the three leases in front of you today are requested for approval to extend the term of the master lease between >>[reading ordinance] united states navy for treasure island child care ctr., south waterfront parcels in the landing instruction parcels. the amendment in front of you request an extension of one year. there's no additional changes to the terms of the master lease in these amendment and the snow expenses or revenues associated with these leases. tida approval and am available for questions. >> thanks. colleagues, any questions? supervisor yee >> wife 01 year exclusion versus not just turning it over? >> why do we come back for extensions of your? >> yes. >> historically that has been the case. the master lease on your two-year term. in previous
years that in parcels that been removed from the master lease or added to the master leases. so historically they have been on a year-to-year term. associated subleases and that we have in place with businesses on commercial tenants under the subleases are on a year-to-year term. there's not really too much more of a next mechanical answer than that at this point. the checks doesn't make sense to operate-i mean, this is a new wave of business. what is operating on a year-to-year term? >> those are the terms that are in the lease that the navy presents. i will remind the board last year we did execute a similar amendment with a cooperative agreement to extend a multiyear basis until would sunset so we do not need to keep coming back each year. that is certainly something that we can talk with the navy about and see if with next year's amendment they would be amenable to further term which, i'm not sure if that is what you're asking, but we are
willing to see if that's the case. to not have to amend it every year. >> it just makes more sense not to do it every year. unless you have it for many years. >> okay. seeing no other questions thank you very much. will move on to public comment. anyone wish to public on these comments seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> i like to make motion to move this 17-19 with a positive recommendation to the full board >> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item 20 >> item 20, >>[reading ordinance] >> thanks. we have jamie with
it to speak on this item >> good morning. my name is jimmy whitaker. property tax manager and the comptroller's budget analysis division. he with the annual property tax rate ordinance and pass through. as you probably know, the base 1% property tax rate is set by proposition 13 passed by california voters in 1978. the portion above 1% is determine each year so that we collect enough property tax revenue to pay for the general obligation bond principal and interest do that fiscal year. the original ordinance is submitted august 2 prior to the bart board determining the three county tax rate factor. so, the number included for the
bart general obligation bonds and original ordinance is an estimate good i like to ask that the committee amend the original legislation to reflect what the bart board determined would be the tax rate factor and that is 0.008 0%. for bart geo bonds and that would bring the composite property tax rate per 2016-17 up to a little bit what, was estimated to 1.1792%. i do have just a couple of slides to put on the overhead. so, the last year's property tax rate was 1.82%-1.1826%. this year it's going down slightly. 1.1792%. that's based upon the schools and special district collective rate for their geo bonds go down just a little bit. to provide a
comparative tax bill for last year compared to this year, the median taxable values not the market value, but the median assessed taxable values is about $500,000 for single-family single dwelling home in san francisco. so, that is the reason you see $500,000 from last year to this year the inflation that allowed by proposition 13, the inflation increases 1.5 to 5%. thus, the typical property tax bill for this evaluation could go about $73.14. if you have any questions or be happy to answer them. >> thank you for that expiration. colleagues, any questions? we do i pass out the amendment already sold we have him and him and the court has them as well. mr. rose can
we get your report on item 20? rejects mr. chairman i would at we recommend that you approve this legislation. >> thank you very much. with that will open up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item 20? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] be checks on make a motion to send the fourth item 20 as amended per the as stated on the record with positive recommendation to the full board >>, commotion was to adopt the amendment. >> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> also motion by supervisor tang we take that be without >>[gavel] >> thank you limited because please call item 21 >> item 21, >>[reading ordinance] >> thank you very much. do we
have hsa here or who do we have to speak on items 21? >> good morning. my name is robert walsh acting director of the facilities and operations. human services agency. we are here today to renew the lease at 165 cap street. the building is currently occupied by the mission neighborhood resource center, which is a vital part of the community and they provide various services like drop in services for folks. our very critical to helping the community especially with regard to the homelessness. this lease is for, i believe, it's five years right. five years and it is a little below the market value. let me grab my notes, here. so, the total five your cost would be
$1,276,000 .847. the first year of the lease would be $240,000, which is actually very close to the price we are already playing. given is this a question so be happy to answer them. >> okay colleagues any questions right now? mr. rose, can we go to report on item 21, please >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee. on page 11 of our report we note hsa currently pays the annual rent for the 165 cap st. at two and $22,000 .37 so that would increase in the first year by 8.3% or 18,000.463 two 240,500 yard according to the real estate division, that 8.3% increase in rent is reasonable because the landlord has not increase the rent since expiration of the original
lease in december 2010 and the proposed rent represents their market value. as the department as indicated, the total rent payments for the initial five year lease terms are 1.2.. that shown in table 2. on page 12 of our reports. we do recommend you approve this resolution. >> thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions for our analyst? seeing none, will move on to the public. anyone wish to comment on 21? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> denied a motion to move this toward >> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk can we call item 22, please >> item 22, >>[reading ordinance] rejects >> thanks very much. mayor's office of housing is a. >> thanks for having my name
is stacy patrick project manager and the mayors office of housing and community development. before you today is that a resolution authorizing the acquisition of 5000 square-foot lot located at 25th st. and connecticut street for the purpose of building affordable housing. the purchase we made pursuant to the option agreement for purchase and sale of real property between the city and owner of the land the san francisco housing authority and that is stated dated june 1 26. all went out to key terms from that agreement. one is that the purchase price is one dollar. that's made in consideration for the future use of the affordable housing and the partnership between the san francisco housing authority and the potrero hope sf project. which the site is adjacent to. the second term is that the closing will happen 30 days after the board of supervisors approves exercising the option to purchase and that will
facilitate the project meeting its construction schedule. were hoping to close on financing in the next couple months and start construction by the end of the year. the city will merge this 5000 ft.2 lot with the 25,000 square-foot adjacent lot located 1101 connecticut st. which we already purchased earlier this year. we've entered into an option to ground lease for the entire 30,000 square-foot lot with rich housing. that is so that they construct 72 units of affordable housing on the site. the site is known as block x which is part of the larger potrero hope sf revitalization plan. the site is currently vacant and will require no relocation. which helps meet the larger potrero hope sf goals
of achieving minimal displacement of residents while we revitalize the whole site. of the 72 units, 53 of those units we made for residents made available for residents of the potrero hope sf site. in conclusion, the acquisition of this parcel will enable the land assembly needed to create 72 units of affordable housing block x and the the project schedule starting construction on his much needed housing by the end of the year. this concludes my presentation good if you any questions, i am available rejects thank you. colleagues, any questions the one we will move on to public comment on item 22. anyone wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> denied a motion? >> moved and seconded. >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> thank you everybody. mdm. clerk any other business in front of us? detects no mr. chairman. >> okay. we are adjourned. >> >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >>